Alito’s Epic Fishing Trip Exposed: Unfathomable Conspiracy or Wealthy Dudes Who Fish?
In an area plagued with political tension with a clear split between cultures coming to a head, it is imperative to approach claims made with critical thinking and a fair assessment of the facts. We should avoid succumbing to fallacies, such as drawing unjustified connections between personal favors and judicial rulings, as found in the article we are covering. Instead, let us thoroughly examine the circumstances.
A recent article originally published by ProPublica and subsequently republished by Lost Coast Outpost attempts to attribute wrongdoing and negativity to Robin Arkley II based on tenuous connections and assumptions. The local media seems dedicated to fomenting perception, division, and hate in their portrayals of these men and this particular occasion in question. In this newest expression of the clear and present disposition they hold toward success and wealth when achieved by their perceived enemy class, they ignore the many good deeds of those they’ve chosen to hate to instead focus on unfounded connections and assertions to prop up their preconceived notions.
This is done, all the while, as the political side of the aisle they claim consistently behave in precisely the same manner without a word of scrutiny from these publications or their authors.
In this time of political upheaval and division, it is essential to evaluate the evidence presented critically and not jump to hasty conclusions that demonize individuals without substantial justification.
Let’s take a closer look at the recent article that has raised eyebrows regarding Justice Samuel Alito (photo) and his friends’ fishing expedition in Alaska. Hopefully, by the end of this article, we can arrive at a better-formed conclusion that extinguishes the heated rhetoric and the emotions it was designed to conjure.
Logical Flaws in the Controversial Article about Alito’s Fishing Trip
The article tries to insinuate wrongdoing by highlighting the luxurious nature of the fishing trip and the involvement of Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire. However, it is essential to recognize that justices, like anyone else, are entitled to take vacations and enjoy leisure activities. The article states,
“The Supreme Court justice was on vacation at a luxury fishing lodge that charged more than $1,000 a day,”-Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan, Alex Mierjeski | Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court
Regarding Singer’s involvement, the article mentions that he flew Alito to Alaska on a private jet. However, it fails to establish a direct link between this act of generosity and any influence it may have had on Alito’s rulings. The article quotes an unnamed expert saying,
“If you were good friends, what were you doing ruling on his case?”-Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan, Alex Mierjeski | Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court
This statement assumes a particular level of friendship between Alito and Singer and suggests bias as a consequence of such without concrete evidence to support the claim. This is an attack on both men’s characters, assuming both would sacrifice their principles to help a buddy.
…implying impropriety without providing evidence of any direct connection to judicial decisions.
While Singer’s hedge fund did appear before the Supreme Court multiple times, it is essential to note that Alito did not recuse himself from just one case but several. The article acknowledges,
The decision in Singer’s favor does not automatically indicate impropriety, as the court’s judgments are based on legal principles, not personal connections. Furthermore, logic clearly shows that even if he had not voted, the outcome would have remained the same, with a clear majority in favor. The mere mention of this is a bridge too far where the authors expect the reader to believe Alito’s not refusing himself and his single vote was somehow monumental when in reality, it is inconsequential.
By adding this to a flowing rhetoric against the group the reader is led to believe there are multiple connections leading to a conclusion in an opportunistic way by these authors who, as you’d likely expect by now, chose to exclude exculpatory information that doesn’t fit the narrative they are attempting to paint.
Alito Violates Federal Law!?!?!
The article argues that Alito violated federal law by failing to disclose the private jet flight. It quotes ethics law “experts” who state,
“Alito appears to have violated a federal law that requires justices to disclose most gifts.”-Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan, Alex Mierjeski | Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation with GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court
However, it conveniently overlooks the fact that justices often interpret disclosure requirements differently when it comes to accommodations and transportation for social events. In contrast, do these media establishments apply their criticism of Justices and their alleged gifting equally? I could not find an equivalent article naming Judges known to be center left in the same way as here. Additionally, the authors fail to acknowledge that Alito defended his actions by stating,
As mentioned previously, the article quotes an expert stating, “If you were good friends, what were you doing accepting this?” in reference to the flight on the private jet. This statement assumes a level of friendship between Alito and Singer without substantial evidence and relies on the fallacy of guilt by association. It also hinges its entire credibility on the authority of the so-called expert.
Robert Arkley II – Local Villan Billionaire or ?
The article attributes wrongdoing and negativity to Robin Arkley II based on tenuous connections and the assumptions I’ve covered so far and will add to now. Not only do the authors work overtime to paint Arkley’s contributions to The Federalist Society and its head, Leonardo Leo (who made a statement you can read at the bottom of this post), as nefarious but they also try to influence you to have a negative view of the three men by presenting both Alito and Singer as two wealthy fellas without principles or morals.
By claiming Alito may have violated federal law by accepting free air travel as part of a vacation – without either an ethics panel or there being an independent investigation which had reached conclusion supporting their allegations – is rhetoric used to influence a reader’s view of Arkley by association.
It is essential to evaluate the evidence presented critically and not jump to hasty conclusions which demonize individuals without substantial justification.
While it is true that Singer provided transportation for Alito, it is vital to approach this matter objectively and not automatically assume any impropriety or negative motives. The use of private transportation does not inherently imply any wrongdoing or undue influence. Without additional evidence, it is unfair to demonize Arkley or attribute negative intent solely based on this connection. Also, providing an estimated cost which they claim would “have exceeded $100,000 one way,” is done intentionally to trigger those on the left who are historically associated with anticapitalistic sentiments.
The folks who are frothing at the mouth over this air travel, who on the other hand are self-identified Climate Change Afficionados, breeze over the fact that if Alito had denied using the provided ride, he’d have to travel there in an additional plane doubling if not tripling the carbon footprint of the trip. Would they, if in Alito’s position, chose to fork over their own cash, lug their belonging through an airport twice, potentially deal with layovers, and dump all of that extra carbon into the environment simply to adhere to some ill-defined code of ethics?
Making it seem as if $100,000 is just thrown around, like buying a buddy a coffee from Starbucks, is done to strike jealousy in those who have not achieved the same level of success and subsequent wealth. In a failing economy with skyrocketing inflation, this insinuation comes with more sting than it would during times of economic stability and growth, as experienced in the previous administration. In an area where folks still support Bernie Sanders and ignore how hypocritical Sanders’s historic rants opposing the millionaire class are now that he has achieved the same class level himself is telling. Do folks on the other side of the political aisle ever conduct themselves in similar manner?
“Alito did not report the 2008 fishing trip on his annual financial disclosures. By failing to disclose the private jet flight Singer provided, Alito appears to have violated a federal law that requires justices to disclose most gifts, according to ethics law experts.”
Wealthy people doing wealthy people activities with other wealthy people. Is this so hard to reconcile, or are the authors working their hardest to paint a picture that doesn’t reflect reality? Imperfect men either forget or, for some other reasons, fail to disclose what others view as “gifts” – is this really newsworthy?
Examining the details and circumstances surrounding non-disclosure before making definitive conclusions is crucial. While transparency and adherence to disclosure requirements are vital, it is possible that Alito’s failure to report the fishing trip may have been an oversight or an interpretation of the disclosure rules that differ from the article’s assertion. Assigning guilt or implying wrongdoing without thoroughly examining the facts and intent is unjust.
Robert Arkley II – Valuable Contributions to Humboldt County
What you won’t hear Outpost or the other local media hacks ever say is a kind word about Arkley. Despite his many contributions to Humboldt County – which have doubtlessly added value to the lives of many – because of his personal beliefs, assumed political affiliation, and dare I say, the trinity of his gender, skin color, and age, Arkley’s many good deeds fall on the deaf ears of the local left media. A brief list of valuable contributions Arkley has provided to the community follows. Hopefully, those who may have been influenced into negative feelings by the article we are covering can reconcile their feelings with the following:
- Founded the Humboldt Baykeeper organization in 1995. Humboldt Baykeeper is a non-profit environmental organization that works to protect and restore Humboldt Bay and its watershed.
- Served as the Executive Director of Humboldt Baykeeper from 2000 to 2010. As Executive Director, Arkley helped grow Humboldt Baykeeper into a respected and influential environmental organization.
- Co-founded the Humboldt Baykeeper Foundation in 2005. The Humboldt Baykeeper Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides financial support to Humboldt Baykeeper.
- Served as the President of the Humboldt Baykeeper Foundation from 2010 to 2015. As President of the Foundation, Arkley helped to raise millions of dollars to support Humboldt Baykeeper’s work.
- Received the California Coastal Commission’s Lifetime Achievement Award in 2015. The California Coastal Commission’s Lifetime Achievement Award is the highest honor given by the Commission to individuals who have made significant contributions to coastal conservation.
In addition to these organizations, Arkley has also been involved in a number of other environmental initiatives in Humboldt County. He is a member of the Humboldt Bay Harbor District Board of Commissioners, the Humboldt County Planning Commission, and the California Coastal Conservancy’s North Coast Regional Advisory Council. He is also a founding member of the Humboldt Bay Watershed Council and the Humboldt Baykeeper Legal Defense Fund.
Arkley’s contributions to Humboldt County have been significant and far-reaching. He has helped to protect and restore Humboldt Bay, its watershed, and its surrounding environment. He has also worked to raise awareness of environmental issues and to build support for environmental protection. Arkley is a true champion of the environment, and his work has made a real difference in Humboldt County. Unfortunately, due to factors he explains in his own words, we may be losing this gentleman and his valuable contributions. Click the audio player below to give a listen to Rob Arkley explain it in his own words:
It is crucial to approach the attributions made towards Robin Arkley II in the article with caution. Without clear evidence of misconduct or harmful intentions, demonizing individuals based on tenuous connections is unfair. It is crucial to rely on verifiable facts and a fair assessment of the evidence when discussing the actions of individuals involved in legal disputes. Furthermore, It is imperative to approach the claims made in the Outpost / ProPublica article with critical thinking and a fair assessment of the facts.
We should avoid succumbing to flawed logic and attempts to conjure emotion, such as drawing unjustified connections between personal favors and judicial rulings without observing all of the nuances and respecting them appropriately. When the local media runs an article like this dripping with bias, we must look elsewhere for a fresh opinion and Lost Coast Populist has your back. We see actions like these as intentional and designed to foment false perceptions, division, and hate in the Humboldt Community.
We’ve illustrated time and time again that it is most likely those who are on the left who create false threats and other boogiemen in order to have an oppressor to stake claims against. Because one clearly doesn’t exist, they feel compelled to leave fake signatures on petitions that are critical of the behaviors demonstrated by their political bedfellows particularly around children, or place threatening stickers in public places. Don’t fall into the trap these folks are laying at your feet. Chose to look beyond the headlines and discover the truth for yourself. God Speed Patriots!
Leonard Leo’s Full Statement
“Justices Alito and Scalia, along with Judge Ray Randolph, are among the most intelligent, strong-willed and independent legal minds I have ever known, and they can be what they are without outside influence because they serve for life. No event, meeting, dinner, or trip would influence their approach to the rule of law.–Leonard Leo, The Federalist Society
I would never presume to tell them what to do, and no objective and well-informed observer of the judiciary honestly could believe that they decide cases in order to cull favor with friends, or in return for a free plane seat or fishing trip. Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor also have regularly received a level of hospitality from friends and strangers that most Americans never experience, but, like their conservative colleagues, they don’t disregard the law because of outside influence.
They’re smart and equally strong-willed and independent—just wrong about their proper role and what the Constitution means. We all should wonder whether this recent rash of Pro Publica stories questioning the integrity of only conservative Supreme Court Justices is bait for reeling in more dark money from woke billionaires who want to damage this Supreme Court and remake it into one that will disregard the law by rubber stamping their disordered and highly unpopular cultural preferences.”